>> patricia aufderheide as the author of reclaiming ferret used to put balance back in a copyright. university chicago press. professor aufderheide, what is fair use? >> the right to use other people's material without permission under some circumstances. >> host: where did that term come from? >> guest: it's part of law and it's been a part of the common law since 1841. and as a copyright act since 1976. >> host: what's an example of fair use today? >> guest: it is done by students everywhere when they quote a scholar or an encyclopedia or her wikipedia or any other source. they get to use it as a result of fair use. journalists do it everyday when they say the think-tank report said this no, actually sourcing doesn't have anything to you do
it fair use although it is a polite thing to do to give credit to people, but many examples you never need to give credit to be within the copyright law. you would make people upset if you did it frequently. any kind of collage and artist makes uses materials from the front places and doesn't necessarily site it. documentarian's use copyrighted material inevitably all the way through their work because the world that we live in is largely copyrighted at this point deutsch effect since 1976 copyright is the fault. did you make notes for this interview? they are copyright after. because it is a copy redefault. it's been extended dramatically.
so, fair use is important these days precisely because of our little world is actually copyrighted. there are exceptions. something has to be very old or produced before 1923 or has to be produced by an employee of the federal government on government time exclusively without additions from other people which often have been so only the federal government many states and localities copyright their own documents. as a common understanding where you can use people's material that's copyrighted in order to quote from it and refer to the and produce something new to access it for a different person, that would all be more important to this generation than ever before. not only because of our digital
tool, but also because all that stuff belongs to somebody else now. >> host: how has youtube affected fair use? >> guest: it has a particular use it it's the same as it has been in terms of people's practice. what you see with youtube, with vimeo etcoff photoshop, any of the additional tools, a garage band, it's easier before than ever to copy petraeus, a couple of consequences of that. number one it's more for copyright holders if people could copy their work than ever before. there's a huge difference and a fundamental difference between somebody copying your work so they don't have to pay you and they can just use it for free that would be stealing under the
common understanding and under law. and somebody accessing your work so they can make something new or old then for your purpose, to give you an example i want to hear the latest song but i want to pay for it i will just to download it, that is illegal and stealing. but i want to explore the latest beyonce video ascent choreographer said you used my choreography moves in my video and you didn't credit me, the choreographer was making a copyright charge, like many people she was more concerned about credit, but said look que joost mine movant didn't credit them. is that true do you believe
that? you might want to check a section of her video that demonstrates a move and prepare that to the recorded choreography of the french choreographer. on my website and examining this and saying that these examples. beyonce beebee singing in that video that you are reproducing a section of her work using the appropriate amount and doing something different with them because you want everybody to hear her music and you love it. >> host: in your view is that french choreographer correct in calling out beyonce? >> guest: from a legal perspective she may have had the grounds not aware. i've written this book with my colleague who also teaches at our school as a legal scholar
and between the two of us is the person who can speak authoritatively on the law. but i can say to that is customer practice and what the law, commonly permits as communities have proclaimed their use, so was the french choreographer right? you have the right to use her work. they may be making an argument about the french law but you don't have to worry about the legal issue. the fact that she freezes this point creates moments i want to say something about beyonce and i don't want to have to figure her agent is to be able to do this but i have the right to make that comment civil law is to encourage me in any way that it can to make a new culture.
so in part we will provide you a perk if you make the culture you can have its. the notes he made on the interview with me you can have them for a while. you can have them for all along weigel, seven years after you're dead. but if the notes were available to me elsewhere and i wanted to say look at the questions i'm getting asked by a television interviewer these are the kind of questions i would ask. i want to compare that to kill it i would have the right to teach your copyright work in order to make that comparison because i would be making the claim we have nothing to do with the purpose of your work. >> host: who do you write this book for? >> guest: i read that book for you we and other people who just want in their ordinary day to make the culture and what ever
they are doing. you might be a musician, you might be one to upload a video or your children might be one to upload a youtube video and you might say is that going to get them in trouble? will they have a mark against them if we do this? there are people creating slides to want to know can i just told an image of the internet or not if i'm going to make this? is that troubling in any way? as well as scholars, teachers, librarians. the book chronicles ten communities of practice including journalists, documentarians, k-12 teachers, mostly middle school teachers, college professors, and people who make open courses with
higher education. we have worked with them and other groups to hold them clarify how they can get their work done and as i said it's a relatively new problem in the world so before 1976, actually it was like a no-brainer because a lot of it wasn't copyrighted. >> host: what happened in 1976? >> guest: the law has changed, and as a result, the great enthusiasm by the corporate copy holders to extend their rights over the existing archives the government responded by extending the copyright and extending the length of the copyright term and the amount of rights associated with it and by making copies redefault. in other words they were kind of copywriting our work. >> host: if in the book you had written about mickey mouse and how he is drawn and put an image in here with that have
been fair use? >> guest: i'd have to ask myself to questions. i would have to say why am i referring to mickey mouse clicks i can say anything i want to i want to quote something he said in one of the movies or he sounded like this and then he sounded like that i might not only want to put a picture of him, i want to put video clips into the book version into the multimedia version then i would have to say what to my want to do in the movie that he's in? that's right time making a comment about his historical significance or treatment of my sore whenever i'm going to say or the world that disney has played in copyright, as the
copyright stakeholder, or the way that disney has a company has historically taken with it in the public domain and such as folklore and turned it into a corporate product that is copyrighted i can say that and quoting specific works of disney. i might want to show a picture of snow white and i would have the right to make all of the references in so far as i'm doing something enjoying the full tale or the movie. i'm not taking away anybody's enjoyment in the movie. nobody is going to read my book and say snow white and the seven dwarfs because i've got it and i am making a reference to this and i concluded that cities are the questions i have, is it how
transformative, that is the magic word the lawyers to use it means i'm using it for some other purpose than it is on the market for and the second question they are pretty easy questions to ask and they should really be something kindergarten teachers can do. kindergarten teachers are in the situation every day when their students are creating copyrighted work and they sometimes want to take it up. do they have to ask their -- to they have to ask the children's parents for copyright permission? no, they don't because if they are going to put it on the web site for the school they have an argument they are we contextualizing in contrast with each other in order to
demonstrate the capacity of 5-year-olds. >> host: is fair use stealing intellectual property? >> guest: the whole book is explaining why not only is it not stealing but fair use is a right everyone has this enthusiastically encouraged mo leyba oh-la-la but judges and conservative lawyers everywhere in the united states. the last 15 years after the spartans are not the fair use locks has shown the judges can actively support ferre users. the reason they do is because judges do not want to be in the position of the north of private censorship to read of copyright, which is now long and strong and
says many things, today's copyright holders can get to have a death grip on their property so that nobody can make a new work out of this unless they see so then they become private sensors. to enable them to become private sensors? devotee the federal government. but federal government is prohibited by doing that. so if you're not going to use your fair use rights, if judges do not agree fair use is an important part of law than judges would be saying copyright is unconstitutional. no you are not stealing your using the right you have to make new work. you would be stealing if you took that beyonce song and downloaded it illegally house of that you can enjoy it.
if you are doing something new with it and you are creating culture with it, the law is telling you please, go ahead. please when you start substituting for the original purpose, that stealing. >> host: the international standards? >> guest: that's a great question to read every copyright policy around the world has exemptions to it that makes sure if private censorship does not happen. those exemptions are all different. the ferry to salles is the most flexible and says if you do something in different you are only taking as much as is appropriate. go ahead and make a new culture to begin practice what happens in many commercial businesses
including publishing and international film, production and this tradition is in the u.s. law that was found just about everywhere. one of the reasons that is true is other nations do not have the statutory damages because in case you make a mistake they go far beyond the cost so, in other places there isn't much of a financial motivation to relieve the laughter people unless they were actually stealing but it's interesting the places that haven't had very use as something they want to adopt and it's probably the most vivid example because they believe they are stopping innovation unless they loosen up the ability of access of the
existing culture and the prime minister had been saying exactly this the british innovation may be at stake because they don't have fair use and he would like to be able to have that protection to be let the copyright law, of something called fair dealing which is a list of exemptions of specific things you can do rather than make up your own mind that it should be transformative inappropriate they rerouted so it was long of an invitation to make the decision by itself again for the reason they believed it is associated with innovation and creativity. >> host: what do you teach an american university courses?
>> documentary film which by the way extensively uses fair use devotee to the structure of higher education and supervisory research and communications. >> we've been talking with professor patrician aufderheide about her co-authored a book reclaiming fair use how to put the balance back in copyright published by university of chicago press. booktv is on location on american university. >> now from american university kenneth anderson sat down with booktv to discuss his book living within the u.n. in which he argues some organizations are worth supporting while others are not. it's about 40 minutes. >> living with the u.n. is american responsibilities and international order. kenneth anderson as the author.
professor anderson, what parts of the u.n. work? >> this is going to sound a little heretical. probably the best part of the u.n. in terms of its working is the security council. that's got to see in a little bit strange. >> why do you say that? >> two distinct reason. one of us is watching and we see things like syria unfolding in the obstruction and the security council and the ability to come together to resolve these kind of major humanitarian disasters that involved officious dictators slaughtering people so you look at that and you think this has to be the worst part of the u.n. rather than the best part of the reality is that the security council was operating
through a fair extent as it is intended meaning they had a pretty good idea of the new with you are trying to fix and what they were trying to fix was the league of nations everybody got the same vote and the same place and everybody had the same impact, the good, the vatican of the whole thing and it was a disaster. so we saw, they solve the falling of the part of the league of nations and they were resolved and not going to let that happen again in 1945 and the way to do that is to deliberately create the council in which the great powers again the whole thing would be there and if a deadlock the deadlock. we couldn't go against any single permanent veto bearing
number. but it enabled them at least to try to keep the alliance to speak rather than having them go outside and start hacking away from the outside. so, despite these problems that the security council has, this is actually fairly successful working out as a place the great powers come together to debate not necessarily to resolve things, resolve some things but not others. but it's actually in many respects success rather than a gimmick what nations make up the security council? >> the security council have five permanent members, and these are the victors of world war ii and the other criticism of the council that i think is very well taken is that they no longer represent the population
of the world and they don't represent the geographical institution or the power in the world so they include the united states, china, and includes russia but russia is neither an economic or military superpower accept in regards to its use nuclear arsenal. then we have france and britain, and here we have the median of powers that are not economic heavyweights in the world and yet still exert a great deal of force in the world affairs a great deal of influence on world affairs but a large part of that is actually a leveraged by the security council itself. we have no india, we have no prez sell -- brazil, no party
outside of this kind of frozen grouper and this is i think again the enormous problem for the security council and no structural way to overcome. the reason why is pretty simple. why don't you step on down. there is a lot and in the meantime germany pops up and says we are one of the world's greatest economic superpowers and we can't do anything from the marshall standpoint but we pay for everything so we deserve a seat we dhaka the military either we should have a seat because we are an economic
superpower and some very powerful country which says no way. pakistan and china would say no. japan doesn't make a lot of sense but in any case china would say no to be to germany, everybody says not another from europe. so the security council does have an enormous structural problem that is increasingly and will be increasingly and representatives of the world as a whole. and that is printed be its biggest problem. they feel like they don't have a permanent seat of the table to make other arrangements to contractor around the security council and try to find other ways to do things. not all of which are such great ideas from the standpoint of the united states or the western democracy. is the macarthur revolving members?
>> yes. we oftentimes the elected them to rely just did in my statement about them so we have 15 members as with other things these rotations are generally speaking because they rotate on a completely fixed in the geographic basis there is a sort of order so there's not as much fighting and it is important to understand that we do actually require a vote not just to the p 5 if you have to get a super majority of the 15 members at that moment to agree in order for the security council action going forward so it's not just this. they have the ability to block things but not the ability to make anything happen. >> what does that he stand for?
>> permanent. the u.n. is quite possibly the most jargon -- it thinks the department looked in comparison. >> what is the general assembly and is a defective? >> the general assembly is the meeting place of all nations. everybody ties one vote. everybody has a voice. q. can see this over here when the war of leaders open up for the general assembly session in september, the each make a speech. the good part about it is it's a place everybody has some place and the bad part about it is everybody has some voice that's generally the biggest problem
for the united nations and it is because there is no tampering on what goes on to read the members of the general assembly to pass through the truly binding loss when other words of the general assembly passes are resolutions that do not carry the force. they are also building a responsibility so fat. from the u.s. standpoint much of what they want to do is not just wasteful and not just -- a lot of things they would like to see go forward or things the u.s. general assembly would like to see forward. we are willing to cover for their members from a standpoint,
from any standpoint this way. in the nature of such a body. they tend to be that the worse you are, the more that you have an incentive to want to be in the leadership of an organization that might somehow say things about you. >> guest: . it protects them and then it creates protection for them and their friends. >> in your book living in the u.n., you write that the u.s. should simply buy out of the u.n. networks and in containment of the u.n. meltdown. what do you mean? >> what i mean by that is that the general assembly and its appendage by and large are hostile to the united states, wasteful and will basically seek
any resources that attempt to use them in ways that are either wasteful. but the institutions of the u.n., the kind of clause i independent bodies that in one sense you could say they are branded by the u.n., they are generally speaking have budgets which receive a little bit of funding from the main u.n. budget but by and large it is really voluntarily funded by the governments that will get what they're doing and like what they are doing and are willing to pay for it. ..
do all the time. they try to identify the agencies that have the best leadership and institution. and put money in to them and let the others wither. i think it's a good strategy and the u.s. ought to be pursuing as much as possible. >> host: what does the u.n. cost the u.s. every year. >> >> guest: it's not more than a few billion dollars on the one hand that's a lot of billion classer. let me break it down a little bit. it's 22 fortunate at this point of the total budget. it's set by the general assembly, and in past periods that meant that the general assembly that consistencies largely of the state that didn't pay the bill but increase the budget ever more and essentially
as majority stick it to the wealthy minority. it was not so much the u.s. that called a halgt to that in the 1970s as west germany in those days. there evolved a system which was a consensus point. they have to agree to the budget. it's been going up. there's a lot of pressure from the u.s. through i think one of the finest officials we have a guy named joe who is kind of our point guy in dealing with budgets administration management. the kinds of issues. and which are enormously serious. it's an institution that pays fantastically well to the people that get permanent position and the position are dolled out on the basis of nationallalty, geography, almost everything other than confidence. once you have one of the positions you locked to an
international civil servant job that make -- new new nice pill union they pail in comparison to the kinds of issues that go on. something in which the official documents of the u.n. say that the civil servant of the u.n. should be paid according to the highest standard with the highest civil -- in the world. if you're coming from a poor country, i certainly don't begrudge when it comes to the u.n., the incentive that winds up creating to hold on to the job no matter what happens. because you're going go back to your country to something which is just a completely different standard. it creates enormously incentive. in term of the total amount that cost the united states, we're talking a few billion dollars.
most of which the vast majority of which the point is not actually tied up in the required u.n. dues. it's the mistake actually the focus as many conservatives do on the required u.n. dues. the money is not that much. where the u.s. mostly pays in is in the form of, at this point peace keeping operations which we put in $5 billion maybe at this point on the year. and that money is money which we voluntarily put in, and it's assessed in one sense, everybody is going to contribute to that pot wants to know it's partners are all agrees to do the same thing at any given budget sight l. you don't want to be the country that puts in the money and nobody else does it. you can't do everything you're stuck and can't take it back.
the u.s. puts in the money and the other countries. under the command of the security counsel is peace keeping operations. the u.s., i believe, recognizes and recognizable from the bush administration and the obama administration that peace keeping operations with the u.n. for all of the problems the scandals and sexual -- scandals of ripping off the organization all adds up. there's a value being provided by peace keeping operations thatter relaceble to the united states. we will see this one when it comes to mali and other places where we're looking to them to perform jobs we can't do. >> host: what is the u.s. influence in the u.n.? >> guest: it's large in one sense and in another sense is not. the key factor, it's a key point about the book, i've been
talking almost exclusively about the u.n. and the u.s.' relation to it as a play within the u.n. system. the biggest player of the super power, all of those things are true. the most important relationship that the u.s. has to the u.n. is not actually as being the biggest player within the u.n. system. it's rather that the united states operates in effect the parallel system of international order or security also economic which the u.s. provides vast amounts of public goods to the world that are completely outside the u.n. system. and we run a risk in deciding, as i think the obama administration has been -- to say we don't want to be that provider of security and these public goods to the world. let be another, you know, big player at the u.n. but another belly up to the bar
kind of player at the bar of the u.n. in turtle bay. and let the collective worry about it. and the reality is they won't worry about it it. they will worry about it in ways that religion dag us. probably the most important thing if the u.s. doesn't understand it guarantees a system as an actor from the outside, the consequences is going to be a scramble among scared and worried rising great powers who we all should fear would come to blows. >> host: assess, if you would, the last two u.s. ambassadors to the u.n. >> guest: oh my. last two ambassadors -- here is the thing. john bolton was excoriated as someone who despised the u.n., famously said you can chop off the top and send it off and
nobody would notice there in the headquarter. >> host: do you agree with the statement? >> guest: i agree about 80%. and somebody said about the book, they said, you know, it sounded con sill will story here and the message is american liberals need to understand that the u.n. is not going anywhere. it's not going to grow to the wonderful thing which is going to sort of governor world in a kind of way. american conservatives need to understand that the u.n. is not going anywhere. they need to understand it's not going anywhere but in two different ways. the liberals they need to understand it's statistic. it's not going grow or change or e volve to anything better. conservatives need to understand it's not going anywhere. it's permanent institution we have to deal with. i think the john bolton recognizes that, actually. but but the hostility he had
toward the u.n. meant he showed up their engaged in every aspect of it. i sort of watched him in action during the last sort of spasm of the u.n. reform efforts in 2005, sort of last gasp with kofi annan. he marched in not with orders to blow up the place but take the process seriously. he sharp end up the pencil and they hired a new york law firm like cul vitamin lawyers to lock in and negotiate every point as if it mattered. they hated him for it. the reason they hated him for it because the dynamic of the u.n. is supposed to be you're supposed to take it seriously but not too seriously. right. none of this is really quite that serious. ambassador rice started